Lord, (do not necessarily) hear our prayer

In solidarity with the USCCB’s push for “comprehensive” immigration reform this September 8, the Catholic Social Action office for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati is distributing resources for parish use, including sample intercessions. Here’s the graceless kick-off prayer:

For our leaders, that they may implement policies that allow for safe migration, just migrant working conditions, and an end to the detention of asylum seekers, while protecting our national safety, we pray to the Lord.

Yet what is comprehensive immigration reform, exactly? The faithful can’t be expected to get behind something unless they know what it is. In Archbishop Schnurr’s July letter, he exhorts us to embrace this comprehensive reform but never really defines it. The closest he comes is in this paragraph near the end:

We hope and pray that the U.S. House of Representatives and its leaders will advance the cause of comprehensive immigration reform that allows our nation to protect its borders and provides for family reunification, stronger workers’ rights, and pathways to citizenship. Should they fail, should they vote for the status quo, then no one wins — not migrants or their families, not law enforcement, not our economy or communities, not America.

If this ambiguity is due to His Excellency recognizing that the Church’s role is to educate the faithful on a set of principles that they then balance across complex situations so as to exercise their prudential judgment (as opposed to, say, abortion, which has a bright line mandating prohibition), then all to the good. But the way these efforts come across is that the federal government should set about proposing and doing something “big” and that we are duty-bound to support it. And that just ain’t so.

17 Responses to “Lord, (do not necessarily) hear our prayer”

“Comprehensive immigration reform”? Close the borders completely. That would be a “comprehensive immigration reform” too.

It would protect our borders keep families together because they would no longer be allowed to be split up. Local works would have stronger rights and more opportunities. Everyone would have the same and equal paths to citizenship. None.

Sound that solution answers all of the concerns and wishes. Bet it won’t even be discussed.

Wow. I got some errors when posting. Looks like some words got garbled. Here it is again.

“Comprehensive immigration reform”? Close the borders completely. That would be a “comprehensive immigration reform” too.

It would protect our borders, keep families together because they would no longer be allowed to be split up. Local workers would have stronger rights and more opportunities. Everyone would have the same and equal paths to citizenship. None.

Sounds like this solution answers all of their concerns and wishes. Bet it won’t even be discussed.

John Kennedy, closing the doors completely is a violation of our principles as Catholics. If the idea doesn’t get much discussion soon, it is only because it has already received so much discussion. I kindly point you to review the pope’s recent remarks at the island of Lampedusa, or simply Bing “catholic bishop migrants closed borders” (without quotes) for the unanimous opinion of our good shepherds.

BTW, I DO think that the immigration laws are the prudential judgement of the duly elected politicians based on Catholic principles and not opinions of bishops or the Pope. I do NOT agree that open borders or unlimited state support is a Catholic principle. Enforcing / requiring ALL immigrants to follow existing law would be a Catholic principle.

Rather than invading Poland in 1939, the Germans should simply have migrated there until, by sheer weight of numbers, Poland was demographically Germanized. Right, Spambot? The same goes today for Israel, no? It should admit as many non-Jews into its borders as wish to come there, until Israel just isn’t a Jewish state in any meaningful sense anymore.

Spambot, is there no room, consistent with Catholic principles as you and others portray them, for laws by which, say, Japan, or Finland, or Mexico excludes migrants who are not Japanese, or Finnish, or Mexican? Is every country morally obligated to let itself become a big, multiethnic stew, until every country is just like every other?

(I ask as someone who thinks the US should relax its restrictions on immigration.)

Christians in general and Catholics in particular should push governments into accepting migrants and refugees and immigrants to the extent that each country is able to provide support. Israel lately has turned away Eritrean asylum seekers, and there is no way to support that action. Israel needs to remain a safe haven for Jews (as should every country), but Catholics ought not support cold-hearted application of unjust laws.

Sorry about Japan, Finland, Mexico, etc. becoming a “big, multiethnic stew”, but I don’t ethnic purity of the land being high on any Christian’s list of priorities, especially if it comes at the expense of helping others who are genuinely in need.

If you say “comprehensive immigration reform that allows our nation to protect its borders and provides for family reunification, stronger workers’ rights, and pathways to citizenship.” you can go on talking like that for hours with hardly a movement of the gray matter inside your skull. But if you begin “I wish Juan to stay in Mexico and Brown to say when Juan shall come in to the United States,” you will discover, with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think. The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard. There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word “damn” than in the word “degeneration.”

If only the bishops would read Catechism 2241 in its entirety, especially this last sentence : “Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

I’m torn on this matter. I’m all for relieving human suffering and the separation of families, but I can’t help but feel like we’re all being taken advantage of in this whole matter. Let’s not be naïve; these are not “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” etc, etc, etc these are “future Democratic voters” and this is all about the Left’s strategy to lock in abortion, so-called “gay marriage”, embryo destruction, euthanasia, the total control of the State in the rearing and educating of children, and all the other policy preferences of the political Left into perpetuity in this country. Since we are told this matter is all about supposed “justice” and modern society defines “justice” as the implementation of all the Left’s political goals, this is what will ultimately occur in “comprehensive immigration reform.” Should we really aid and abet this process???

It’s very similar to an experience that occurs ever so often where I feel like I’m also being taken advantage of: a young man in his 20-40s standing with a cardboard sign on the exit ramp by my car window saying, “Out of work, spares some change. God bless.” My gut reaction is to give the man the shirt off my back along with my wallet, but in the back of my mind I know the guy is out of work (both because of Obama’s continued economic misery, but also) because he’s generally irresponsible, and more concerned with getting a daily fix for his opiate addiction (which is a tragedy in and of itself) than being responsible. The 2-4 children he has, are completely dependent upon the State for food, shelter and medical care, and he’s considered on more than one occasion pawning his children on Craigslist for a few carton of cigarettes. Now, he’s clearly a suffering soul, but I know my money won’t go to feeding him or his kids, but instead will subsidize his next fix. Do I enable this sad man? Do I withhold from giving this man money and instead hurry and give it to St. Vincent de Paul instead? Seriously, I’d like to hear what to do in a situation like this. Or, should I hand him my money with the idea being my obligation is to feed those who come to window if they take advantage of my charity, that is on their conscience?

So in conclusion, do we give our supposed charity towards suffering migrants by supporting “comprehensive immigration reform” and if the State takes advantage of our supposed charity, well that is on the conscience of those leftist individuals who will work to ensure that these “pathways to citizenship” are used for their nefarious political goals? Or do we not enable the State and its leftist supporters in this process, and instead direct our charity towards migrants in more proven areas other than “comprehensive immigration reform”?